Stem cells hold great promise. Their ability to form heart, blood, muscle or brain cells could revolutionise medicine. But where embryonic stem cells are concerned, this potential should always be coupled with a great deal of responsibility and ethical consideration.

Embryonic cells result from the creation and destruction of embryos. This immediately makes many people uneasy. The hope is that by destroying embryos, these embryonic stem cells will be able save lives in the future in the form of treatments for diseases. But this is not a black and white issue.
Patient’s groups are eager to believe in an instant cure whenever a new stem cell development is announcement when, in truth, no one can say exactly when – or if – a viable treatment will ever happen.

If, like some religious organisations, you believe that life begins at the moment of conception then the collection of embryonic cells involves ending a potential life after specifically creating that life in the first place. Is this the way we want our society to view human life? The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority believe the ethical argument has already been decided because during IVF treatments excess fertilised embryos are stored and usually, after a period of time, destroyed. This is allowed by law. How is the collection of embryonic stem cells any different?

I believe there is a difference. Creating embryos for IVF treatments has one aim: to produce a healthy child for an infertile couple. The odds are low but millions of women have conceived this way. Therapeutically cloning embryos for embryonic stem cells has the laudable aim of curing diseases but there is a subtle change in emphasis. Scientists are exchanging a statistical outcome (IVF success rates vary from clinic to clinic) for the hope and promise of what might be possible. A high price to pay for hope, some might think, especially when there is an ethical alternative.

Embryonic stem cells are considered the most ‘plastic’ or flexible stem cell for scientists yet research is continually being published proving that adult stem cells are far more flexible than previously thought. Surely this is a more appropriate route for scientists to follow and governments to invest in? Medical research into new treatments for disease can continue without the need to create and destroy embryos.

Dr Steve Jones suggested this is a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one. I disagree. I am pro-science but believe that science should also work within an ethical framework and philosophical debate should definitely play a role in scientific progress. That, surely, is what it means to be human.
Sue Nelson spoke at the x-change in November 2004 at the Dana Centre.